FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY

(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) Fidelity maintains that their notice was adequateThe claim that the preliminary commitment "clearly states" there is an easement is disingenuous at best This is the generic "notice" provided, all of which are in conditional ("may" not "does" exist) language: Any facts, rights, interests or claims that are not shown by the Public Records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of the Land or that may be asserted by persons in possession of the Land Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records Any encroachments, encumbrances, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and not shown by Public Records Any lien or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the Public Records Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the Public Records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed Insured acquires of record for the value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof, (c) water rights, claims of title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b), or (c) are shown by the Public Records (a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records All taxes and assessments, now or heretofore assessed, due or payable Fidelity cannot seriously contend--and yet it does--that this generic list "clearly" indicated that there was an easementBy that logic, we may have an unpatented mining claim on our land as well The language here does not even remotely state that an easement exists, merely the possibilityI also STRONGLY disagree that they could not anticipate that an easement/encumberance is not a factor on a property that every single landowner would want to know in clear unambiguous languageNot "may exist." Not "if you look it up yourself in public records." No, the Title company is expected to alert the purchaser to defects or encumberances in title With each response Fidelity merely re-enforces their dedication to failing the consumer(s) who pay their fee This remains unacceptable

On the evening of September 14, we received a letter via FedEx from an attorney representing [redacted] indicating that the bank has a lien on our property from the previous sellers The letter explained that the previous sellers did not remit any of the money from the sale to [redacted] The letter states that " [redacted] has multiple options available to them, including foreclosing on the [redacted] property, wipe out any lien claimed by [redacted] take possession of the subject property and sell it at a Trustee's Sale." The letter referenced an enclosed letter from Fidelity which states that they have no liability The enclosed letter from Fidelity was dated May 5, (Claim No: [redacted] )The lender concluded with a statement that the situation is to be resolved by September 30, We spent the entire evening combing through all of our paperwork The following day we made several calls to Fidelity, our lender(s), our realtor, our loan officer, etcBy the end of the day, we got word from Fidelity that this would be covered by our title insurance This brings me to my main concerns: 1.) Fidelity clearly missed this while researching give us a clear title 2.) Fidelity knew about this situation back in May, but did not communicate this to us This lack of communication has caused us undue stress - imagine getting a letter indicating that your home could be foreclosed on for an issue that you had no knowledge of, and no responsibility for While Fidelity has since taken care of the situation (as they should since that was what we paid for with title insurance, etc), it should have never have come to us in the first place In September 2016, one year after we purchased our home, we received a letter via FedEx from an attorney representing [redacted] indicating that the bank has a lien on our property from the previous sellers The letter explained that the previous sellers did not remit any of the money from the sale to [redacted] The letter stated that " [redacted] has multiple options available to them, including foreclosing on the [redacted] property, wipe out any lien claimed by [redacted] take possession of the subject property and sell it at a Trustee's Sale." The letter referenced an enclosed letter from Fidelity which stated that they have no liability The enclosed letter from Fidelity was dated May 5, (Claim No: ***)The lender concluded with a statement that the situation is to be resolved by September 30, We spent the entire evening combing through all of our paperwork The following day we made several calls to Fidelity, our lender(s), our realtor, our loan officer, etcBy the end of the day, we got word from Fidelity that this would be covered by our title insurance This brings me to my main concerns: 1.) Fidelity clearly missed this while researching give us a clear title 2.) Fidelity knew about this situation back in May, but did not communicate this to us This lack of communication has caused us undue stress - imagine getting a letter indicating that your home could be foreclosed on for an issue that you had no knowledge of, and no responsibility for While Fidelity has since taken care of the situation (as they should since that was what we paid for with title insurance, etc), it should have never have come to us in the first place

We have investigated this complaint, and fully reviewed the information provided to the buyer, Mr[redacted] The easement in question was disclosed in our preliminary commitment, and a hyperlink to the recorded document was incorporated in that commitmentThe document was available from the onset of the transactionWe do sometimes experience a breakdown in technology, wherein the document is not accessible in all instances We acted as a settlement agent/scrivener and a title insurance policy provider in this transactionIn those roles, we have a duty to disclose matters that affect the use and control of the real property, and to provide copies of any recorded document to the partiesWe are not engaged as attorneys or agents representing either partyTherefore, we cannot offer opinions or advice as the ultimate effect of the matters we have disclosed, other than to reflect them in the commitment, and the final title insurance policy Other parties in the transaction hold roles that might have offered insight on the effect of the easement, but unfortunately that is not the responsibility of the title companyWhile we are sorry that Mr [redacted] was "surprised" by this easement and it's effect on his property, we do not believe that there was anything further that we might have done to disclose its existence We remain open to further discussions with Mr [redacted] , and encourage him to contact us at any time

first we are sorry this accident happened, and we do not know or claim to know what happened to cause the damage.what we do know, is the trailer was rented in good working conditionReturned with damage that totaled the trailer and is no longer usable per the signed rental agreement (see attachments) customer is responsiblewe offered to work with customer on limiting the cost for them, but they were not interested and wanted us to eat the costs and pay their tow feesthis is not acceptable to usthe cost we have into the trailer is $our cost to replace would be over $we offered to split the cost of replacement at $1000, with us eating $of our costs of the damaged trailerThey did not want to accept thisWe are only charging our cost for the trailer which will need to be replacedWe have other photos showing more damage but could only attach four attachments ***SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS REDACTED BY Revdex.com***

Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because:We had possession of the trailer for about hour and had driven less than miles when it fell apart.We were driving under the speed limit by 10-mph while pulling the trailer.We checked visually to be sure there was nothing wrong frequently.We were on a well used highway and did not encounter anything unusual such as potholes, rocks, etc.we were not told the trailer was unsuitable for highway driving.You would be able to use a rented object for its intended purpose without it falling apart.if you use a rented object in the way it was intended and it does fall apart, it does not make sense that the most recent eat the cost.I drove the same road with the same truck with a different trailer to retrieve the damaged trailer and the kayaks we had also rented.That trailer carried more weight yet didn't fall apartIn all the years that I have used various trailers to haul a variety of objects, I have never had anything like this happenHow does the business owner explain how the trailer experienced so much damage yet my truck had none?Sincerely, [redacted] ***

In order to resolve this issue, the company is willing to honor the customers desired settlement by refunding the fees he paidPlease have the customer email the details on where to send the payment to [redacted] @fnf.com

Complaint: ***I am rejecting this response because:
The check list the staff went over covered the kayaks including what equipment was on them and how to use itNo staff member went over a trailer check listIf fact, I thought to check that we had the correct tool to fit the lugs on the tiresThe spare provided had the incorrect number of lugs to fit on the rim
Not all wear is apparent with a quick visual scanIf it were, there would be far fewer accidents of all sorts
A rental agreement assumes the equipment rented is in good working orderIt would not be ethical to rent inferior equipment and insist the customer pay for the replacement cost
The owner gave us the choice of paying $up front for the trailer that he stated he had $into, or charge our credit card for $We refused to pay for we had taken extremely good care of the trailerHe then charged our credit card $ If we had encountered a rock, a pothole, or anything like that, we would assume responsibility for the trailerWe encountered nothing like thatWe could not have been more careful and nothing unusual happenedWe were driving under the speed limit on a normal, heavily traveled highwayWe had driven approximately miles and had the trailer for about hourThe tow receipt confirms thisThe owner never asked to see this and did not seem to care about the circumstancesHe automatically blamed us and charged us as he feels he is legally entitled to doIf he or anyone else had experienced this, they would be just as indignantWe probably should have taken more pictures or asked the state trooper to file a report but it never occurred to us that the rafting company would not take responsibility for their equipment.
If we are considered responsible then the owner should be required to state on his rental agreements and verbally that his equipment can not be used for highway conditionsHe did not state this verbally or in writing when we rented the kayaks
Since he brought up his reputation, when discussing this situation with family and friends, other people have told us of inferior quality work that was completed at this storeOne of them pursued it with the owner and eventually gave up never receiving a refundThese are the only two people we found that had already used this business
Sincerely,*** *** and *** ***

(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
This response is insufficient in that they acknowledge the same sufficiency of notification in my original complaintThey agree that the only notice of this encroachment to our title was done by "hyperlink" in a document, and then also acknowledge that the "technology does not always work" and, knowing that, much less the importance of the existence of the encroachment, did not advise or give notice in any other fashionHaving a document "available" is not the same thing as giving notice
We were not interested in the "effect" of the easement, but its very existence which IS the responsibility of FidelityWith proper notice of the easement, we ourselves could assess the effectBut we were not given sufficient notice
Fidelity also appears to still completely fail to appareciate that embedding this important information in a hyperlink may (might, we may yet explore that) legally satisfy their claim of notice, but it is wholly and shockingly short of the level of service and trust a buyer should be entitled to rely on
Fidelity in their response also seems to be completely satisfied with the level of notice and the outcome of the paucity of notice given, again, speaking volumes for their dedication to customer careAn appropriate response would include that they have reviewed the method, understood the defect was not sufficiently alerted to the buyer-- if in fact the link worked at all, as they acknowledge it may not have-- and would now ensure that they would not adhere to the mere insertion of a hyperlink in situations when an easement or other encroachment is found, but would orally and in writing via email or other written method, specifically direct the attention of the buyer to that factThis method, making a phone call and sending an email might comprise an entire ten minutes of the Title officers time
Finally, Fidelity's attempt to spread the blame elsewhere while understandable when realizing they have failed, is also a poor practice when the title company is, by its name, the sole party responsible for alerting to issues of title to the property
In sum, this response confirms the defects in service conduct alleged, and maintains that that conduct was deficient but will not be changed

first we are sorry this accident happened, and we do not know or claim to know what happened to cause the damage.what we do know, is the trailer was rented in good working condition. Returned with damage that totaled the trailer and is no longer usable.  per the signed rental agreement (see...

attachments) customer is responsible. we offered to work with customer on limiting the cost for them, but they were not interested and wanted us to eat the costs and pay their tow fees. this is not acceptable to us. the cost we have into the trailer is $1500. our cost to replace would be over $2000. we offered to split the cost of replacement at $1000, with us eating $500 of our costs of the damaged trailer. They did not want to accept this. We are only charging our cost for the trailer which will need to be replaced. We have other photos showing more damage but could only attach four attachments.
[redacted]SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS REDACTED BY Revdex.com[redacted]

they can say what ever they want. We were not there and do not claim to know what happened. the trailer went out in good working order. was returned unusable and totaled! this  trailer had been used by others without any issues. had been titled by Alaska DMV and inspected by dmv personnel and passed inspection to be titled. they looked it over signed the papers. we knew of know issues with this trailer. In our opinion they hit something with the wheel of the trailer as per attached. the complainant inspected the trailer and signed that they are responsible for damage. as previously sent.we are sorry this happened.  we have been in business for over 15 years, we value our reputation and have a very good one. this will be our last response to this issue as we feel we have done nothing wrong.

Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because:We had possession of the trailer for about 1 hour and had driven less than 40 miles when it fell apart.We were driving under the speed limit by 10-15 mph while pulling the trailer.We checked visually to be sure there was nothing wrong frequently.We were on a well used highway and did not encounter anything unusual such as potholes, rocks, etc.we were not told the trailer was unsuitable for normal highway driving.You would be able to use a rented object for its intended purpose without it falling apart.if you use a rented object in the way it was intended and it does fall apart, it does not make sense that the most recent eat the cost.I drove the same road with the same truck with a different trailer to retrieve the damaged trailer and the kayaks we had also rented.That trailer carried  more weight yet didn't fall apart. In all the years that I have used various trailers to haul a variety of objects, I have never had anything like this happen. How does the business owner explain how the trailer experienced so much damage yet my truck had none?Sincerely,[redacted]

(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Fidelity maintains that their notice was adequate. The claim that the preliminary commitment "clearly states" there is an easement is disingenuous at best.
This is the generic "notice" provided, all of which are in conditional ("may" not "does" exist) language:
1. Any facts, rights, interests or claims that are not shown by the Public Records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of the Land or that may be asserted by persons in possession of the Land.
2. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records.
3. Any encroachments, encumbrances, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and not shown by Public Records.
4. Any lien or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the Public Records.
5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the Public Records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed Insured acquires of record for the value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment.
6. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof, (c) water rights, claims of title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b), or (c) are shown by the Public Records.
7. (a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records.
8. All taxes and assessments, now or heretofore assessed, due or payable.
Fidelity cannot seriously contend--and yet it does--that this generic list "clearly" indicated that there was an easement. By that logic, we may have an unpatented mining claim on our land as well.
The language here does not even remotely state that an easement exists, merely the possibility. I also STRONGLY disagree that they could not anticipate that an easement/encumberance is not a factor on a property that every single landowner would want to know in clear unambiguous language. Not "may exist." Not "if you look it up yourself in public records." No, the Title company is expected to alert the purchaser to defects or encumberances in title.
With each response Fidelity merely re-enforces their dedication to failing the consumer(s) who pay their fee.
This remains unacceptable.

In order to resolve this issue, the company is willing to honor the customers desired settlement by refunding the fees he paid. Please have the customer email the details on where to send the payment to [redacted]@fnf.com.

Fidelity is very sorry for the circumstances that led to this issue. The consumer clearly feels that notice of the existence of the easement was not given. We respectfully disagree. The preliminary commitment clearly states that the property is subject to an easement, as evidenced by the listing of the recorded matter in Schedule B-II, exceptions to coverage. This section lists all matters that the title company is not providing coverage against, and discloses that the Owner's title insurance policy to be issued will be subject to those same matters. Notice is imparted by listing the exception, not by explaining the document. Easements exist on nearly every property, and are disclosed by the title insurance industry, by showing them as exceptions on Schedule B-II of the commitment. This is the industry standard; however in this case our typical disclosure did not adequately inform the buyer.
We have no method of determining which matters are of import to each party, and therefore do not make a practice of calling attention to any certain matter, rather we rely upon the complete disclosure within the commitment to alert all parties. It is not a means to avoid work or mislead, it is the result of not being able to determine what is important to each party in each instance.
There is no attempt to spread the blame elsewhere. Each participant in the transactional process has separate roles. We were seeking to explain ours, as seen from our viewpoint.
We constantly seek to improve in our communication of these important matters to each consumer. Every commitment is taken seriously, and we will use this situation to learn and improve. We are dedicated to superior customer service, and in this case the consumer felt we did not deliver. Fidelity again apologizes for the unmet expectation.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
I have emailed them the information they requested at the email address they provided.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

On the evening of September 14, 2016 we received a letter via FedEx from an attorney representing [redacted] indicating that the bank has a lien on our property from the previous sellers. The letter explained that the previous sellers did not remit any of the money from the sale to [redacted]. The letter states that "[redacted] has multiple options available to them, including foreclosing on the [redacted] property, wipe out any lien claimed by [redacted] take possession of the subject property and sell it at a Trustee's Sale." The letter referenced an enclosed letter from Fidelity which states that they have no liability. The enclosed letter from Fidelity was dated May 5, 2016 (Claim No:[redacted]). The lender concluded with a statement that the situation is to be resolved by September 30, 2016.

We spent the entire evening combing through all of our paperwork. The following day we made several calls to Fidelity, our lender(s), our realtor, our loan officer, etc. By the end of the day, we got word from Fidelity that this would be covered by our title insurance. This brings me to my main concerns:
1.) Fidelity clearly missed this while researching give us a clear title.
2.) Fidelity knew about this situation back in May, but did not communicate this to us. This lack of communication has caused us undue stress - imagine getting a letter indicating that your home could be foreclosed on for an issue that you had no knowledge of, and no responsibility for.

While Fidelity has since taken care of the situation (as they should since that was what we paid for with title insurance, etc), it should have never have come to us in the first place.

In September 2016, one year after we purchased our home, we received a letter via FedEx from an attorney representing [redacted] indicating that the bank has a lien on our property from the previous sellers. The letter explained that the previous sellers did not remit any of the money from the sale to [redacted]. The letter stated that "[redacted] has multiple options available to them, including foreclosing on the [redacted] property, wipe out any lien claimed by [redacted] take possession of the subject property and sell it at a Trustee's Sale." The letter referenced an enclosed letter from Fidelity which stated that they have no liability. The enclosed letter from Fidelity was dated May 5, 2016 (Claim No: [redacted]). The lender concluded with a statement that the situation is to be resolved by September 30, 2016.

We spent the entire evening combing through all of our paperwork. The following day we made several calls to Fidelity, our lender(s), our realtor, our loan officer, etc. By the end of the day, we got word from Fidelity that this would be covered by our title insurance. This brings me to my main concerns:
1.) Fidelity clearly missed this while researching give us a clear title.
2.) Fidelity knew about this situation back in May, but did not communicate this to us. This lack of communication has caused us undue stress - imagine getting a letter indicating that your home could be foreclosed on for an issue that you had no knowledge of, and no responsibility for.

While Fidelity has since taken care of the situation (as they should since that was what we paid for with title insurance, etc), it should have never have come to us in the first place.

We have investigated this complaint, and fully reviewed the information provided to the buyer, Mr.[redacted]. The easement in question was disclosed in our preliminary commitment, and a hyperlink to the recorded document was incorporated in that commitment. The document was available from the onset of...

the transaction. We do sometimes experience a breakdown in technology, wherein the document is not accessible in all instances.
We acted as a settlement agent/scrivener and a title insurance policy provider in this transaction. In those roles, we have a duty to disclose matters that affect the use and control of the real property, and to provide copies of any recorded document to the parties. We are not engaged as attorneys or agents representing either party. Therefore, we cannot offer opinions or advice as the ultimate effect of the matters we have disclosed, other than to reflect them in the commitment, and the final title insurance policy.
Other parties in the transaction hold roles that might have offered insight on the effect of the easement, but unfortunately that is not the responsibility of the title company. While we are sorry that Mr. [redacted] was "surprised" by this easement and it's effect on his property, we do not believe that there was anything further that we might have done to disclose its existence.
We remain open to further discussions with Mr. [redacted], and encourage him to contact us at any time.